The starting line-ups. Perez and Lavezzi switched flanks, while Kramer only lasted half an hour - Schurrle was on in his place, with Ozil moving into the middle

Germany won their fourth World Cup after victory over Argentina in a tense but enjoyable final.

Joachim Low’s team selection was compromised by the late withdrawal of Sami Khedira through injury. Christoph Kramer took his place – although he only lasted 30 minutes himself.

Alejandro Sabella’s side was unchanged from the semi-final against the Netherlands.

Both sides had promising moments in an even match – Argentina had the better chances before Mario Gotze’s late winner.

German possession v Argentine counter-attack

The game started at a reasonable pace but settled down quickly and took the expected pattern: Germany were 4-3-3, Argentina 4-4-1-1. Germany pressed higher up, while Argentina sat back and defended. Germany tried to keep possession for long periods, while Argentina attempted to play on the counter-attack.

There were no major surprises in terms of individual positioning, or who was tracking who – Mesut Ozil played even narrower than usual and offered some neat touches to link play, but otherwise everything was as expected.

Argentina’s midfield quartet started the game extremely narrow, blocking the centre of the pitch, preventing Germany penetrating the midfield cordon with straight passes into attack, and instead showing them wide. The full-backs were free throughout the game, but Germany’s left-back Benedikt Howedes (a right-sided centre-back by trade) doesn’t offer anything going forward. After an hour, there was a telling moment where Bastian Schweinsteiger received the ball towards the left of the pitch, turned around and expected to find Howedes overlapping, but instead he’d remained in position. Schweinsteiger’s reaction suggested great frustration that this potential route into attack had been denied.

Luckily, on the other flank Germany have the best full-back around, and their attacking play has been considerably better since Philipp Lahm reverted to his traditional right-back position, having played in midfield in the first four games. From the outset he received plenty of passes and had license to motor forward down the flank, often combining nicely with Thomas Muller. As always, Muller’s movement was excellent – he drifted inside to cause Marcos Rojo problems (winning an early free-kick from him) then returned to the outside to stretch play.

Lahm and Muller have a good relationship from Bayern Munich, and they continually played neat combinations into attack down that side. Lahm crossed dangerously a couple of times, then poked a through-ball into Muller who was narrowly offside. Later, a spell of pressure down the right led to a couple of corners, and Howedes headed against the post from Toni Kroos’ fine delivery.

Kroos was also a key factor in Germany’s dominance down the right. He had two different roles in combining with his Bayern teammates, either knocking long diagonal balls towards them, or moving forward into inside-left positions to receive low passes/crosses, as he’d done against Brazil. This wasn’t one of Kroos’ better games of the tournament, and his wayward back-header handed Argentina the game’s clearest chance, wasted by Gonzalo Higuain, but he did help to direct their attacking play.

Argentina also break down right

Argentina’s method of attacking was different, because they were playing on the break, and yet similar, because they were overloading the right. Twice in the first half they launched counter-attacks from Germany set-pieces, with Ezequiel Lavezzi powering forward into the final third from deep positions.

For the second game running, Argentina continually rotated the positions of Lavezzi and Perez, and once again they were always more dangerous when Lavezzi was on the right. It’s strange that Sabella seemed so happy for these players to switch flanks throughout – while that’s not an uncommon tactic with wide players, it’s difficult to think of two more contrasting wide players. Lavezzi is basically a quick forward, Perez a central midfield passer. They inevitably played completely different roles, and against completely different full-backs, Sabella surely should have had a preference about their positioning.

Anyway, Argentina created lots from their right flank in the early stages. Leo Messi drifted out there in the early stages, taking on Mats Hummels for pace, getting around the outside, and sending a decent ball into the box. Later Pablo Zabaleta stormed forward and played a cut-back which bisected two players, and Messi played a lovely ball out to Lavezzi, who crossed for Higuain’s ‘goal’, rightly disallowed for offside. Howedes was becoming overrun, and Ozil wasn’t offering him much protection.

After half an hour, Germany had to change shape. Already without Khedira, now his replacement Kramer departed – and Germany had run out of central midfielders. Low was forced to summon Andre Schurrle from the bench – he went left, and Ozil dropped into a position somewhere between the right of a midfield triangle, and a number ten role, still in roughly a 4-3-3. Schweinsteiger and Kroos had more defensive responsibilities and held their position more.

Schweinsteiger

Schweinsteiger had a tremendous game. He bossed play from his deep-lying role, completing more passes than any other player. He also made a couple of crucial interventions in his own penalty area to guard against Argentina’s early breaks – stopping the aforementioned Messi cut-back, then intercepting when Messi attempted to play the ball right to Lavezzi on the break. He also performed his defensive responsibilities well despite being on a (harsh) booking for over 90 minutes, and the fact both he and Howedes were cautioned after half an hour gave further encouragement to Messi and Lavezzi to dribble in inside-right positions.

Schweinsteiger also helped to nullify Messi in his favoured number ten role. That’s not to say Messi had no influence on the game, but his best moments came either out wide on the right, or when sprinting in behind the defence. Shortly before half-time he received a ball over the top in the inside-right channel, forcing Jerome Boateng into some dramatic last-ditch defending, then at the start of the second half, he sprinted in behind for a one-on-one with Manuel Neuer from the left, pulling his shot wide. These were fine opportunities, but they weren’t Schweinsteiger’s responsibility – he forced Messi away from his favoured zone.

Argentina change shape

At half-time Sabella made a strange change, introducing Sergio Aguero for Lavezzi, and moving to a midfield diamond. This was peculiar for a number of reasons – first, Lavezzi had arguably been the liveliest player. Second, Aguero hasn’t been fit throughout this tournament and wasn’t guaranteed to be capable of running for 75 minutes. Third, it meant Argentina were no longer offering pace down the flank, and their play was instead very central.

The game had broadly the same pattern, though, with Germany dominating and Argentina playing on the break. Germany were still afforded space down their right, with Lahm heavily involved, while Argentina’s breaks were through the middle, with the midfield quartet playing balls for Aguero and Higuain to chase. This rather let Howedes, at left-back and on a booking, off the hook.

When Germany had the ball, Aguero was instructed to get back goalside of him, and prevent him from dictating the play, probably another reason for the switch to a diamond – Messi looked exhausted (and possibly suffering from a hamstring injury after his shot past the far post) and therefore unable to track opponents diligently.

Substitutes

The game became more open and slower in the second half, and it was crying out for a couple of game-changing substitutes. However, both coaches had already turned to their obvious replacement – Schurrle had come on midway through the first half, Aguero at half-time.

It was down to the second attacking replacements towards the end of 90 minutes, and Sabella turned to Rodrigo Palacio (who is essentially in the same mould as Lavezzi: lots of running but inconsistent end product) in place of Higuain.

Sabella’s hand gestures to Palacio shortly before his introduction were hilariously stark – gesturing for him to run back and forth, back and forth, back and forth. In more literal terms, this meant he was instructed to pick up Schweinsteiger, then provide pace in behind the opposition defence. This requirement summed up how exhausted Messi and Aguero were going into extra-time – neither had a burst of pace, and Argentina needed a substitute to both cover behind them defensively, and sprint in advance of them.

Germany sent on Mario Gotze for Miroslav Klose, who was quiet upfront. Gotze started out through the middle, then switched places with Thomas Muller to the right, with Schurrle generally remaining on the left.

Naturally, it was Palacio and Gotze, the two attackers with fresh legs, who had the best two chances in extra-time. Ultimately it came down to the quality of their finishes – Palacio chested down but poked the ball wide with Neuer darting out quickly, while Gotze chested down and lashed the ball into the net to win the World Cup.

Conclusion

Germany had more possession but Argentina had the best chances at 0-0. However, the most shocking statistic is that Argentina failed to manage a shot on target in 120 minutes (see above), despite Higuain’s one-on-one in the first half, Messi’s one-on-one in the second half, and Palacio’s one-on-one in extra-time. Wasteful finishing cost Argentina.

Sabella might wish he’d used his substitutes differently, too. Lavezzi was removed prematurely and left Argentina lacking energy upfront, and by the end of the game Palacio was having to do the running of three men, as Messi and Aguero were so tired. This wasn’t a game for Aguero, a player always extremely restricted when not 100% fit, and it feels like Sabella selected a talented individual at the expense of team shape. The Palacio sub was the best chance of saving the day.

Germany had plenty of possession but didn’t offer anything like as much penetration as in the thrashing of Brazil – partly because Argentina were sitting very deep, and partly because their midfield was disjointed from the start, because of Khedira’s absence. Kramer didn’t have a big impact on the game having been injured early, and the system with Ozil tucking into the midfield trio was a little uneasy. Germany had two great supersubs, though – Schurrle and Gotze, and they combined for the winner. Much like Italy and Spain, the two previous winners of the World Cup, using a variety of attacking threats throughout the competition has proved vital – you need different types of attackers for different challenges.

Germany didn’t bring their best game to the final, but they’ve been the best team over the course of the tournament. In a World Cup where many leading nations relied too heavily upon one particular individual, Germany featured different players stepping up at different moments. Hummels and Kroos were excellent in the previous two games, but when their performance dipped here, Boateng and Schweinsteiger compensated by turning in excellent displays. Other sides didn’t have that ‘luxury’ – although it’s not really a luxury, simply a natural result of not depending upon one man.

Even then, Low took a while to assemble his players in the right format, having used Lahm in midfield throughout the group stage – it’s an unusual XI, from the ultra-modern goalkeeper to the old-fashioned goalpoacher. The most important reason for Germany’s World Cup success is the development of so many talented footballers in the first place, rather than the manner they were used.

It’s a real shame Argentina and Messi lost this great chance to win the world cup. I still believe Messi is the best player to ever play football, but he looked like he was injured/fatigued in the second half. I am starting to believe he is burned out from all these years playing top football, whilst receiving growth medicine.

TJ on July 14, 2014 at 12:56 pm

Nah, great that world cup of a team based game was won by the real team, instead of a team based on one individual player.

frank on July 14, 2014 at 2:51 pm

He’s definitely one of the best… I agree that it seemed like an HGH treatment could have really helped him in that 2nd half though.

I also think Messi is the best ever. It’s ridiculous to insist on his winning the WC to be able to say he is the best. A player has two world cups at the top of his game, and so much depends on luck, the form of one’s teammates, and on the coach. Argentina had a remarkable squad going into the last two world cups. One can say that Maradona blew the previous world cup. And yesterday the Argentines were horribly unlucky. That’s football.

David on July 14, 2014 at 5:26 pm

Maradona was the stand-out player of the nineteen eighty-six world cup. That is what is expected of Messi, to dominate a tournament and be it’s stand-out player, and he hasn’t done that yet. It’s arguable if he was even Argentina’s best player of the tournament.

Santelin on July 14, 2014 at 5:53 pm

Very true. I think people should start referring to “the best I’ve ever seen” rather than the best ever. If someone has never watched Pele, Maradona, Cruyff etc consistently play you have no business trying to debate who was better.
Personally Messi is the best players I’ve seen and I started following football closely in ‘94. Even if its debatable right now, he is still 26. By the time he retires at 34 he’ll probably have done more amazing things than some of my favourites like Zidane (late bloomer), R9 (injuries) Gaucho (short peak).

hwk on July 14, 2014 at 6:50 pm

Will we ever see a single player dominating a tournament in the modern game?

roco on July 14, 2014 at 7:40 pm

The answer is No. That’s why is ridiculous to expect from Messi what Maradona did decades ago. And people also tend to forget that Messi is a product of team play from the start, not the product of take-the-ball-and-run of the early decades of football. He can’t change his philosophy of a hard working modest genius to a “villain” genius because people want some banal show.

hwk on July 15, 2014 at 8:33 am

I did not expect an answer. Of course you are right, rock. It is very unlikely that one player will dominate a tournament.
On the other hand. Was it Zidane who dominated in 1998, even he did not score in every game? Or would we call Messi the defining player if Argentina had won the final? Sometimes the opinions depend on a single result.

SKPain on July 15, 2014 at 9:44 am

@hwk

Zidane did not dominate anything. R9 was the best player in that tournament by far.

jimbojones on July 14, 2014 at 7:15 pm

Statistically, Messi was outstanding. Only two players scored more goals than him. He had tons of dribbles, penetrating passes, everything. Check his stats on whoscored.com. Had he hit the net around the 50th minute yesterday, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. 20 centimeters make all the difference sometimes…

hwk on July 14, 2014 at 7:21 pm

For me too, Mess I played a good tournament. Especially when compared to other big stars.

But yesterday, after a close game, the better team won.
I hope Messi gets a chance to lift this trophy in four years (with an improved team, not that they have been bad).

pb on July 14, 2014 at 1:12 pm

With all due respect, Michael, I disagree somewhat regarding the conclusion. Obviously the win would not have been possible without the clubs developing the players.

That holds true for pretty much every big tournament winner though. What would Argentina be without FC Barcelona taking a chance on Messi ? Without Rosario and Benfica shaping di Maria ?

Spain as the argueably greatest national team of our time, what would they have been without Cruyff ?

The reason Loew played Lahm in midfield was that neither Khedira nor Schweinsteiger were fully fit.

Jogi is a fantastic manager and he should be given credit.

tim kimball on July 14, 2014 at 3:40 pm

german national team has a series of unique advantages that it used VERY WELL.
1. most players germany based [esp bayern & bvb], all europe-based–no fatiguing flights for training or game, lots of great duos and trios with years together.
2. excellent national development system for the last several years[several players for usa, ghana, etc, also came thru this system]
3. widespread top level experience thru out the team
4. physically BIG, well trained shooters, very fit
5. clear strategies and philosophies,
6. a coach [i am NOT a fan of jogi tho] and players who played the TOURNEMENT, not just games
7. while most teams were determined, germany was too.

germany is traditionally kind of slow. this team was faster than most of its predecesors.

mikex on July 16, 2014 at 11:21 am

<3

tyrion on July 16, 2014 at 4:11 am

Yes, but Michael’s point is that Germany’s success is derived from a system, implemented after the disastrous Euro 2000 tournament, that emphasises indigenous talent. The articles shown below clarify why Germany’s World Cup triumph was not a coincidence; it was the result of sweeping reforms that overhauled the youth system and facilitated “talent without end”.

The “Clubs developing the players”, the “organization of the German academies”, etc. All this is very true, and equally holds for Spain and a bunch of other countries. However, it’s also good to look at the political economy of football at the age of globalization and uneven development; which might explain why it’s becoming so hard for countries like (and clubs of) Argentina and Brazil to compete, and to develop their academies/football identity.

The fact their players leave both respective countries so young is not necessarily something one can act on – as a country and a federation. In fact it’s surprising that despite the exodus of teenagers going on, thus weakening respective leagues and the “chemistry” of national teams, Argentina and Brazil can still reach the top 4 teams in the world cup. I give much more credit to them for managing to compete despite that, than to Germany for managing to build good academies.

Because the truth is that: (unlike England) Argentina and Brazil couldn’t do that even if they wanted to. Their clubs can’t compete, their countries can’t offer the same wages, therefore, good young footballers leave at a younger and younger age. In turn this means that the leagues are weak, that there is no common identity built between those footballer (e.g. 4/5 of them playing in one team, as happens in Bayern Munich), and that you’re constantly disadvantaged vs richer countries…so yes, praise to Germany, but (more than anything), praise to those who managed to compete with Germany in way harder circumstances!

Sal on July 14, 2014 at 1:19 pm

Argentina did extremely well considering so many injuries – Mascherona is right – they gave their all. Their defenders and midfielders are individually weak, but as a team quite unbelievable. And keep in mind they usually defending with eight, not nine or ten like most other teams. How they managed to protect Demichelis and Garay was amazing.

But it’s really too bad – a fit di Maria, Aguero, and Messi would have made for a completely different match.

When it comes to the team’s tactics, I don’t think there’s much to second guess. But the substitutions I didn’t get. I don’t understand the substitutions of Higuain and Lavezzi. Though perhaps wasteful at times, they are still a far greater threat than Palacio and a hobbled Aguero. And in matches like this, it’s the threat that counts and that gives respite to their defenders. Lavezzi’s substitution in particular was clueless – I’m hoping it was because of an injury.

As for Germany, their dedication to learning ‘tiki-taka’ to increase their previously restricted repertoire was as evident in this match as it has been for the past couple of years. They really passed it around the Argentines, who were restricted by the level of skill in their midfield and defense, as well as their lack of pace in defence making them risk-averse.

But what Germany does not have is ball players or dribblers or quick feet. It’s not easy to teach this, though it might be the next German project. They have learned to pass the ball around, but if really pressed, they cannot compete. To illustrate my point, a team such as Chile, skilled and fit, would have dominated Germany in midfield. They might have lost by other means, but not in the midfield.

Jota on July 14, 2014 at 1:37 pm

“But it’s really too bad – a fit di Maria, Aguero, and Messi would have made for a completely different match.”

As would have a fit Schweinsteiger, Khedira, and a youger Klose or injured players like Reus and Gündogan.

“But what Germany does not have is ball players or dribblers or quick feet.”

Götze and Reus certainly belong into that category. And Schürrle as well…

yeah on July 14, 2014 at 1:54 pm

yeah, it’s lucky that germany’s reus is injured and mario gomez been out most of the season. imagine what this germany’s team can do with both of them fit. mario gomez being a different striker/forward options other than klose/muller/schurle/podolski..they’re going to kill every other teams easily!

Sal on July 14, 2014 at 2:01 pm

Götze certainly does and I think he should have played from the start. Reus I haven’t seen much of. Schürrle is clumsy but effective.

celegorma on July 14, 2014 at 5:10 pm

Reus: 23 goals 23 assists last season. Clearly their most inform player. Schurrle is a poor man’s Reus. Both likes to run and dribble and take shots, but Reus does it so much better. On the bright side, if Reus came to Brazil, I doubt Klose will have as much chance to play, and thus break the record.

Marcello on July 14, 2014 at 6:48 pm

Agreed completely – if Di Maria plays in this game, even at 75% I think Argentina take it. They should have taken it, they had clear cut chances that those players typically bury. He would have absolutely carved up Howedes on that flank and Lavezzi on the other side would have forced Lahm to stay at home more times than not.

Germany were the best team of the tournament, but were very fortunate yesterday.

Boo on July 14, 2014 at 2:03 pm

One can’t ignore the fact that Argentina had only had 3 days to recover from a 120 minute battle + penalty shootout against the Netherlands, while Germany had 4 days to recover from a light training match against a very accommodating Brazil.

There have been so many what-if’s. I suppose there always are at a world cup, and they simply fade with time.

abb on July 14, 2014 at 3:59 pm

that’s true. similar to how netherlands had to play 120+ minutes against a very spirited costa rica side, whereas argentina played only regulation against a belgium team that they had beaten within the first 8 minutes. looks like that one already faded in time from your memory

Ghvinianidzigol on July 14, 2014 at 4:12 pm

But then, Brasil started the tournament on the 12th, while Germany started on the 16th – so before the semifinal they had a full four days more of rest.
I have read before the tournament that the trophy has not been lifted yet by a team from Group H, and the shorter rest was given as a reason. Germany were in Group G.

Argentina were in Group F and their tournament began on the 15th. One day more off than Germany overall.

Boo on July 14, 2014 at 5:16 pm

If I recall correctly, there have only been five world cups with this many groups, a number probably too small to run meaningful statistics on the chances of winning per starting group.

El_Loco_Avs on July 15, 2014 at 4:12 pm

Yeah 5 cups and 8 groups…

DyslexiaUntied on July 14, 2014 at 2:27 pm

“To illustrate my point, a team such as Chile, skilled and fit, would have dominated Germany in midfield.”

I think you are hugely overestimating the abilities of the likes of Gutierrez, Aranguiz and Diaz here. It’s one thing to look good against Fernandinho, Paulinho and Gustavo, it’s another thing to dominate Schweinsteiger, Kroos and Khedira.

Sal on July 14, 2014 at 3:26 pm

They dominated them in the warm up in March, though they had a healthy Isla.

The most important thing about Germany: They usually suck in friendlies, often because they often use them to test concepts. Don’t judge them by their friendlies!

E on July 14, 2014 at 5:54 pm

that is indeed true. germany has a fantastic record at the World Cup, reaching the semi final four times in a row, the final 8 times overall and out of 18 participations Germany has been in the semi final 13 times. (read the wikipedia page “FIFA World Cup records” to get deeper insight how many records they have)
but in friendlies they lose quite often. thats why despite being so succesful at qualifying and getting far in tournaments they dont have stellar records against other teams. England for example has beat them quite often. 15 england victories vs 12 germany victories. now if you look at the statistics of actual success its quite different.

it has always been like that. what Gary Lineker said (“…in the end the germans win”) applies only to games that are important. they of course also lose them, but have a very long history of winning like no other nations. Brazil has more world cups but overall performances germany is ahead. they won three European Cups, too.

in 2010 Germany lost to Argentina in a friendly and at the World Cup they beat them 4:0 for example.

hwk on July 14, 2014 at 6:56 pm

Well, Germany do test concepts in friendlies (that’s what friendlies are made for, right?) And results are sometimes not good. But Low has the best stat (win/lose) of all the Bundestrainer, so they can’t suck that often.

whoever on July 17, 2014 at 1:54 am

while Germany had no Khedira

Hakon on July 14, 2014 at 2:32 pm

I agree on the Lavezzi substitution being strange. The Higuain substitution was maybe a result of his head injury. This would be similar to how Kramer tried to play on after his head injury, but after some minutes had to throw in the towel.

Regarding the German lack of dribblers I am wondering if this actually has contributed to their success. By this I don’t mean that their team couldn’t use some dribblers, Reus is an example of a player that is missed, but that the long time without any excellent dribblers has necessitated a focus on developing collective attacking play through smart runs into space. Germany are developing better dribblers than before, but they also have kept the lessons about how to attack without relying on dribbles.

Another point is Germany actually has had some considerable injury problems. For the final they where missing Reus, Gundogan, Bender and Khedira in midfield, Kramer got injured in the match and Schweinsteiger has had some problems during the world cup. That they still managed to field a very strong team, and to win the championship shows what an excellent job has been done in German football since 2000.

Sal on July 14, 2014 at 3:29 pm

There is no question, as ZM also said, that Germany are a deep team. I can’t think of an irreplaceable player on their squad. But for me, Gotze stands out as a bit special.

Wooledahl on July 14, 2014 at 7:26 pm

Lahm is irreplaceable. Neuer, too.

mikex on July 16, 2014 at 11:32 am

Lahm is irreplaceable. Neuer, too. YUP!!!

Wooledahl on July 14, 2014 at 7:32 pm

Apart from that, I think that the German team did quite well considering that last night they lost both Kedhira and Kramer and had no natural alternatives for them anymore.

a1rwalk on July 14, 2014 at 9:38 pm

argentina having too many unjuries? u gotta be kiddin.

reus, gündogan, the benders and gomez missed the whole thing for germany, while khedira, schweinsteiger and lahm had to fight back from injuries through the tournament.

still, silly arguing about injuries. depth is an important feature of any team and if you dont have it yo’re just not that good of a team.

Tom on July 15, 2014 at 7:58 pm

“To illustrate my point, a team such as Chile, skilled and fit, would have dominated Germany in midfield. ”

You illustrate your point with a fictional event?

RMJ on July 14, 2014 at 1:19 pm

I think this game was also a testament as you sad ZM/Michael to how Germany developed their players post WC-2006. The game highlighted the changes that Jurgen Klinsmann and Joachim Low made to the German setup. Ultimately I think that despite the complaints by the German players about JK’s overt focus on fitness, the incredible stamina that Germany showed clearly had no equal from any other side in the WC(also the timing of the world cup also played a factor here). I think the respect that goes for Low is how he built his team in line with their strength than build it around one player. Argentina was built around Messi which i thought was a mistake considering the wealth of talent available to them while Netherlands played to their strengths or lack of as the WC wore on.

One final question for ZM, do you consider that this world cup has show cased the return of playing 343 or variations of it with three center backs or was it purely a tactical switch around for this world cup to counteract fitness problems, tikka tikka etc?

DyslexiaUntied on July 14, 2014 at 2:47 pm

I don’t think it’s a particular change of thinking, it seemed a pretty logical decision – teams with their weakest players in defense (Argentina, Holland) played with three central defenders, teams with reputable, experienced defenders (Brazil, Germany, Belgium, France) chose to play with two.

I can’t believe Sabella made that sub at half-time. Absolutely ludicrous. I think Lavezzi was tired but put on Maxi and hold the 4-4-1-1 shape. It was working.

Nowitzki on July 14, 2014 at 1:24 pm

What scares me is how young is this German squad. Even Schweinsteiger (who I think should have won the Best Player of the Tournament Award, not Messi), Germany midfield oldest player, is probably going to be playing top football at 2018. Basically everybody from this squad is able to be there at Russia, except Klose and possibly Lahm, and many will be at their careers peak. And Germany also has an fascinating generation of young teenage midfielders, like Draxler, Goretzka, Meyer and Armstrong. I wonder how many world cups this generation is going to win.

If they manage to produce good poachers and fullbacks they’ll be unstoppable

Germany gave a lesson to Brazil. First of all you have to be focused not on result but on a play. With a play comes result. Germans were constructing this team for 10 years. After several disappointing exists they stayed in the same path and in the end were rewarded. Brazil, in opposite- they were obsessed only about the title, but not about quality of play and were humiliated.
I hope Brazil will learn lesson and come back in 2018.

Nowitzki on July 14, 2014 at 2:16 pm

As a brazilian I can say I’m relieved by this German team winning. If Argentina did win, it would only keep proliferating the thought in Brazil that result is important, not how you play. I think that started in 1982 when one of brazil best teams lost to Catenaccio and Paolo Rossi. Twelve years later we won a world cup with 4 defensive midfielders starting, thanks to Romario…. I think what we call “Dunga Era” never ended, as we keep generating young midfielders that are defensive only and unable to pass the ball around (Like Luis Gustavo). Brazil simply doesnt create players like Schweinsteiger and Kroos, creative, complete, defensive midfielders. The last ones were probably Falcao and Cerezo (who lost in 82)
Here we hear a lot of ” Brazil is going to win because we are Brazil, we always win”. Its like nobody else can be as good as us, and it actually helps that many teams are scared when play against us (like colombia was). But we’ve never been an offensive ball-playing team since 82, all we care about is the result, and maybe we needed to lose 7-1 to change that. I can only hope

Ben on July 14, 2014 at 6:57 pm

What about the other brazilan guys from the U-20 2011 team? (except Oscar and willian, who are already in selecao) No any prospects in attack and/or midfield?

Nowitzki on July 14, 2014 at 8:15 pm

A few attacking midfielders but its definetely not our best generation. Oscar and Coutinho are not Rivaldo or Ronaldinho. And the worst is at box-to-box or defensive midfielders, where except Hernanes the guys are good only without the ball, or they are ball-carriers made to play at the break (like Ramires). Right now there’s no way Brazil can play possesion football, and there’s no other neymar on the way. Brazil needs to change how the player development works here. “Thugs for the midfield so the playmakers at the attack will solve everything” is not a good plan anymore

Marc on July 15, 2014 at 3:06 am

I completely agree with you on this. When I watch Brazil and see the amount of talents they have produced, it beats how they so lack true midfield maestros for so long. Talented players upfront and full-backs making drifting runs to connect, but with completely functional/industrial players in the middle. ‘Dunga era’ sums that up perfectly. One major player I believe they missed in the last decade was Deco. No other Brazil midfielder I’ve seen represent the NT come even close to him. He was the missing link in that ‘06 line up (other than novice tactics) that was so heavily hyped but not just failed to win, but also disappointed with a very disjointed playing style.

Yes, maybe there are no complete midfielders, bbut in any case well tactically strucutred team can show both quality and result. But couch should not be stacked to one tactical system. This year Brazil all games played the same formation (4:2:3:1) just changing Oscar’s and Neymar’s positions. Worst thing that after losing both key players (Neymar and Silva), and seeing both strikers being absolutely useless, Scolari still played the same.
You are Brazilians and know more about replacement of Manezes, but in my opinion CBF lost patience because of failure to wine Olympics (which in terms of international football is not the most important tournament). Maybe Manezes was in a right way?

Nowitzki on July 15, 2014 at 12:26 pm

Deco maybe only became that kind of player cause he went very early to europe. I guess that if he stayed a bit longer in Brazil he would become the trequartista he was supposed to be. That summarizes Brazil problem at youth systems: “If you play ball than you’re an attacker” That way all of our defensive midfielders are supposed to have no flair and technique? what the hell…]
My team here in Brazil just sold a DMF to Benfica, and hopefully he will develop a good game. Here he was being used as a winger or striker (?!) more often than deep at the midfield, delivering long passes on the break. Thats Brazil logic…

Nowitzki on July 15, 2014 at 12:35 pm

About Mano Menezes, I agree he has better knowledge of the game and tactics than Felipao (of course), and he was trying some new stuff, but that’s not where he lost his job. Public opinion was against him after poorly selecting his squads and giving national team opportunities to subpar players who, coincidentally, shared the same agent as him. He sometimes went against common sense trying to stick to his players, like when he kept lucas moura from playing the final of the olympic games until the game was already lost. That stubborn behavior reminded too much Dunga (and Felipão is the same).
I don’t think Menezes or Tite are right guys for the job. Tite is all about negative football, Menezes is stubborn and insist on his mistakes and neither is a great tactician.
Cuca would be a good coach had him not developed a fame for losing key games (but always with very offensive teams who dominate early at championships (until people figure out how to stop them)
I’ll be rooting for someone like Bielsa or Sampaoli to take Seleção and shake brazillian football a little lol

You know better, you live in Brazil, I live thousand miles away, but since 82 (my first world cup) I am Brazil football fan like any normal Brazilian and defeat against Germany hurtled me as much as you… Finalizing discussion about couches- maybe Dunga was not so bad? He was focused to the result as was Filipao. Maybe 8 years of work (even not in jogo bonito style) could give some positive result?
The most worrying thing I have son who is playing football and he is 8 years old. Thanks god he watched last year confederations cup, otherwise seeing this year Brazilian performance he would think- “is my dad blind and idiot”?:)

lahm is the same age of schweinsteiger. how can you say that lahm wont be playing in 2018 while schweinsteiger will..it’s ludicrous while you can see that lahm is fit and always play for club and country while schweinsteiger been quite injury prone lately

Nowitzki on July 14, 2014 at 2:08 pm

Lahm plays at fullback what is usually more demanding phisically, and a lot of his high level game is how equally effective he is at attacking and defending. maybe if he keeps playing at the midfielder he can be at high level for longer. And he’s one year older.
But i put an “possibly” at lahm

Schweinsteiger should have won the Golden Ball
Neuer should have won it
Muller should have won it
Kroos should have won it
Hummels should have won it

I think that basically sums up why none of them should have won it. They had the “luxury” of not needing their best players to play well the whole way to win, as ZM points out.

The moment Messi was not beating 3 people and scoring from outside the box, Argentina looked toothless.

That is the key difference.

Ghvinianidzigol on July 14, 2014 at 4:32 pm

Erm, Armstrong? Who exactly are you talking about?

I have not heard of him, which may be my fault.
Transfermarkt only mentions one Philip Armstrong, 20, not attached to any club at this point in time. Transfer value: zero.

Surely Can, Leitner, Bitencourt, Brandt, Öztunali, Gerhardt, Kohr, Pledl or Weigl would be ahead of him in the pecking order.

Nowitzki on July 14, 2014 at 6:32 pm

i was actually thinking of maximilian Arnold, not armstrong, my bad.

Ghvinianidzigol on July 15, 2014 at 7:31 am

ah, right. Good call.

dw on July 15, 2014 at 7:53 am

Schweinsteiger only had two good performances (semi and final). He missed the Portugal game, and was poor against Ghana and France.

Nowitzki on July 15, 2014 at 12:39 pm

I just think he’s such an important player for the team. Its funny how the trophy was always at his hand during celebration. He’s not the captain but he is the leader.
Not that Messi didn’t deserve it either, there were 6-7 players who could take the trophy and wouldn’t be an absurd

Boateng was absolutely massive. It would be interesting to see a map of his interventions, for a while it seemed he stopped everything coming at the German defence. And even if Palacios chance had been on goal, Boateng was excellently positioned to stop it from going in.

Härtner on July 14, 2014 at 2:14 pm

True. Boateng was a giant and had the game of his life. The Guardian’s match report didn’t even mention him once. Astonishing.

tim kimball on July 14, 2014 at 3:52 pm

yes. my son and i were amazed during the game. boateng was on fire while hummels seemed really tired and slow after great service in earlier games???

again, testimony to the great players at all positions germany has, one or more stepping up when needed.

E on July 14, 2014 at 1:47 pm

like i wrote in the last post about pre final predictions when someone mentioned taking Schweinsteiger out: you could see he was totally needed as a “spiritual” leader. you can talk about indivuial skill and tactics all day long, to win big thropies you need players that put in their everything. Özil and Kroos are more gifted than Schweinsteiger imo, but they lack the defiance he has, at times they look like giving up when facing a good competition, Özil is a good example with his body language. Schweinsteiger was battered until he bled from his face and he walked down the pitch as a world champion. how he conducted himself, threw himself into the duels and fought was a key factor for germany holding the lead, most players were totally tired especially Hummels.

the game showed how brutal football and especially the tournaments is: Argentina was trailing for 7 (!) minutes in the whole tournament.
but if you have three good chances with attackers like Messi you need to score at least one and then im sure Germany wouldnt have come back. they deserved it.

Having one of your key players (khedira) out minutes before the game is a big ting, then losing his substitute after half an hour and still win the game, kudos. Khedira is probably a little sad he wasnt playing, but he was injured for six months before the world cup so it was almost a miracle he came back and played well.

yeah on July 14, 2014 at 1:59 pm

spot on..i have been missing this kind of combative midfielder. long have gone the days the strong willed and powerful midfield in football..but schweinsteiger proves me that this kind of CM is what makes a team champions. schweinsteiger is a beast!

Pedro on July 14, 2014 at 2:43 pm

“you can talk about indivuial skill and tactics all day long, to win big thropies you need players that put in their everything”

That’s probably a little extreme. If you only have fighting spirit but no skills you’ll be incomplete too.

In the end, the best quality to have in football is the ability to finish off your opportunities. Only creating or preventing the opponent from creating chances might not be enough.

That was the difference yesterday like Michael pointed out, Germany took their best chance, Argentina failed in their best 3.

Pedro, while I agree with your assessment as a whole, I think by far the best chance of the whole match was Höwedes’ header to the right post. And the blocked shot by Schürrle is not to be forgotten either. That would tie both sides with a total of 3 top chances.

Argentina’s chances looked more dangerous, though: I think that resulted from the way they happened as counter-attacks ending in 1-on-1 situations.

avonbarksdale on July 14, 2014 at 5:43 pm

True, although really only the Messi and Palacio chances were generated by Argentina. Higuain’s 1v1 came not from anything Argentina created, but from a clear offside position because Kroos headed the ball directly to him.

Neo Gramsci on July 14, 2014 at 6:05 pm

Which is not offside then

avonbarksdale on July 14, 2014 at 6:29 pm

Right, I wasn’t arguing that the referee made a mistake, just that it wasn’t really a case of Argentina counterattacking and creating a chance so much as just a chance that came from nothing at all because of a miscue by Kroos.

dearieme on July 14, 2014 at 8:19 pm

“miscue” seems too kind: it was Gerrard-like in its incompetence.

whoever on July 17, 2014 at 1:37 pm

regarding the whole Kroos/Higuain event as a grave mistake by each team cancelling out one another sums it up conclusivly then

E on July 14, 2014 at 6:05 pm

yours would be the other extreme, Pedro

what i wanted to say: i didnt dismiss skill and tactical approach at all, i just wanted to point out why i personally think Schweinsteiger is a little less talented (but a whole lot more experienced) than Kroos and Özil, but is more important to Germany. If things go smooth, Kroos and Özil can make any team in the world better. if things get difficult you need leading figures like Schweinsteiger. He isnt one of the old school loud mouths, but he fights and keeps the team in line when they struggle because of pressure. the sheer amount of hits he took in the last minutes, he literally threw his body into the battle.

Emilio on July 14, 2014 at 7:36 pm

I’d go to war with Schweinsteiger – and I’m from Argentina. When the game is in line these type of players are essential. Fantastic game.

Nowitzki on July 15, 2014 at 12:46 pm

Maybe Kroos will take the torch from him and become a stronger player mentally. Schweinsteiger have through a lot tho, playing top-level football all his career, losing a world cup at home, losing many times before he could win both CL and World Cup. He definetely deserves it. Might not be such a ball player as Kroos or Ozil, but he is more well-rounded and a more complete player right now.
Experience usually makes player more consistent (what Ozil needs) and more spirited (what Kroos need), so future is bright for Germans

hwk on July 14, 2014 at 7:02 pm

Özil proved his salt when he made a 30 or 40 yards run to track back and stop an opponent player. Not that bad for an attacking player.

RG11 on July 14, 2014 at 1:57 pm

I think You are spot on as usual Michael. It was a close game, but overall, hard to argue about Germans. “You are what Your record says you are”, as goes NFL saying.
I like that “compensation” idea, Kroos and Hummels were below their standard in final, but Boateng and Schweinsteiger played their best game of the tournament in this match. Especially Schweinsteiger looked looked the part of a warrior, complete with cut under the eye.
One wonders whether this “waiting for the Messi (Neymar, Ronaldo) to provide “that magic moment” is not in the end counterproductive for developing a winning team.

DyslexiaUntied on July 14, 2014 at 2:53 pm

In club football, yeah that’s counterproductive and as a director of football you should strive for a balanced squad. But in international football, you can only work with the players you’ve got. Brazil, Argentina, Wales, Portugal, Colombia, also Holland to a certain extent – they all have one guy up front who’s miles better than anyone else. What are you going to do, pass the ball around between the lesser guys instead? If you look at England or Italy, they don’t rely on one guy to provide the magic, and still got chucked out in the group stage.

I think that in terms of individual players (and balance across defence/midfield/attack), Germany had by far the best squad of all teams here. It shows that if you can make them play well together, there’s little stopping a team like that.

Aaron on July 14, 2014 at 2:15 pm

Michael – thanks for doing such a sterling job with the write ups. I hope you still enjoyed the World Cup and it didn’t become a chore! Have a nice rest and we’ll see you for the start of domestic season.

dearieme on July 14, 2014 at 8:22 pm

Hear, hear. Well done that man.

DyslexiaUntied on July 14, 2014 at 2:18 pm

Funnily enough after such a great tournament with so many surprises, the final more or less confirmed every stereotype in football:
- A tactically well organised German side without a single superstar (narrowly) beating an gritty, counterattacking Argentina that’s reliant on their one superstar
- Germany scoring the winner in the nick of time
- A German goalkeeper nearly beheading his opponent, and getting away with it
- Argentina making up for its deficiencies with rough, rough tackles (it’s man’s game!)
- Referee easily being the worst man on the pitch

And it got us some more golden moments:
- Schweinsteiger looking like he stumbled out of a war movie as the triumphant hero, blood and guts all over him
- Mascherano on the other side looking a total hero too after 120 minutes of fending off a relentless barrage of attacks
- Özil proving both his fans and his detractors right with a mix of great passes and positioning, and on the other hand lots of frustratingly bad take-ons and fumbles
- Just when you think FIFA can’t be all that bad, they award the Golden Ball to an utterly dejected Messi, who looked as if he’d rather chuck the thing into the crowd and go home

On another note, what the hell has happened to Agüero? He was a spectacular, near-Messi/Ronaldo level sensation only 1 season ago, but yesterday he couldn’t even get pas one single defender in an hour, even though he came in with fresh legs.

ins on July 14, 2014 at 6:21 pm

Lol… Rizoli had an excellent game… If it was not a final he would have shown a red to Mascherano, but people are there to enjoy football, not refereeing and he knows it. Seria A refering has been very good the last couple of seasons where referees try to stay in the shadow of the players, but still dealing with lack of discipline respectfully.

DyslexiaUntied on July 14, 2014 at 7:02 pm

I’m not sure if you’re joking, but the amount of fouls he (and his assistants) missed was almost comical, with the near-beheading of Higuain as the most baffling example. The only good thing to be said from his performance was that his numerous errors didn’t end up favouring one side specifically.

ins on July 14, 2014 at 8:14 pm

Thats the thing I call a good ref. If he tags all the fauls there will be no football left to play. Let the game flaw when it is possible and do not try to be the main figure on the pitch.

HT on July 14, 2014 at 2:21 pm

Messi didn’t cover nearly as much distance as the Germans or as his own fullbacks. Didn’t have many touches. According to FIFA, he completed 28 passes while Schurrle completed 50. He’s such a great player but how do you accommodate him without sacrificing in other areas. At Barca, he drops deep and takes up space that belongs to Xavi and doesn’t really work hard when the team (or himself) loses it. For Argentina, he doesn’t really defend either. It creates an imbalance in the team. If Enzo is covering in the middle of the pitch does Messi have the flanks? If Enzo is on the flanks is Messi covering in the middle? He needs a rest but won’t get one. Barca need a strong squad rotation policy and should look at this year as the start of a new era. Messi is still Messi but he has to contribute in all phases. He can’t really influence the game without possession. He can’t get on the ball if the team can’t win it back. They can’t win it back if they have players who are not pressing. You can’t have Messi and Higuain not really doing defensive work and expect to win.

DyslexiaUntied on July 14, 2014 at 2:39 pm

One of the biggest disappointments to me this WC was that Argentina had Higuain, Messi, Agüero, Lavezzi and Di Maria, arguably five of the best 20 (attack-minded) players in the world, and somehow not once in this tournament was it ever near the deadly attacking force you’d expect it to be. Whether this was due to bad tactical decisions by Sabella or just “bad luck” in the sense that the players were either injured, out of form or too tired – we can only speculate, but I expected far, far more there. On the other hand, Argentina’s defense deserves top marks all around, they’ve outdone themselves.

jimbojones on July 14, 2014 at 4:12 pm

Yeah! The Argentines had easily the best striking force around – and they only found the net 2 times in 450 minutes of football in the knockout stages. And it’s not like they didn’t have chances – they did – and they missed them all.

Sure, Tevez didn’t even come, Kun was out of shape, and Di Maria got injured – but that still left Messi, Higuain, Palacio, and Lavezzi. They could and should have done better. Ultimately, their profligacy cost Argentina the title. The Argentinian defense was supposed to be the weak spot of the team – but the keeper, the defenders, and the defensive midfielders all had a splendid tournament. It’s the strikers that let Argentina down. Of those, Messi deserves the least blame, since he played the deepest, and scored four goals in the groups. Higuain and Palacio will have some sleepless nights this week, I’m sure.

george on July 14, 2014 at 3:42 pm

I disagree with the “distance” argument: it’s not how much distance you cover but how you do it. You can do an amazing amount of distance jogging (like Xavi in Barcelona or indeed Kroos in this German team) or much less distance but sprinting every time you have the ball (which inevitably means you need more rest afterwards). Messi was doing the latter, but you can’t expect someone to be doing both.

The problem with Messi in this Argentinean team is that he was expected to do absolutely everything: come back to pick the ball in midfield, play incisive passes as a number 10, overlap on the flanks as a winger, and be a ruthless goalscorer…and now people criticize him for not being a defensive midfielder too…That’s way too much to ask – and is way more than Maradona himself contributed even in 1986. Let’s remember that he – at least – had partners in attack who did score goals (e.g. Valdano, Cannigia), not least the ones of the final vs Germany, whereas Messi was desperately lonely both in the attack and the creative zone. That’s blatantly obvious.

That said, his performance has been outstanding: He scored 4 out 7 goals of Argentina + providing one assist. He created 21 chances in total (vs 13 of Muller, second to him), played as many through-balls as Pirlo (both top of ranking) and had 46 completed dribbles (vs 29 of Robben, who is second of the classification, and 50 of Maradona in ‘86)…he surely is the player of the tournament!

HT on July 14, 2014 at 4:06 pm

Messi being the sole creator creates a number of problems. First, he drops deep and takes up space that should belong to a 6 or 10 type of player. Look at Xavi at Barcelona. When Messi drops deep it congests the midfield. He doesn’t track back when he loses the ball either. That means other midfielders, by design, must be available for tracking back. That’s why it was so important to replace Gago with Biglia. Gago just isn’t as effective defensively. Bringing in Biglia really solidified the team defensively.

Yes, he created the most chances. By design, Messi must create the chances. Yes, he had the most dribbles. That’s by design as well. It’s part of their tactical set-up. Pirlo played less games so of course he contributed less. It’s hard to fit creative players in the team when one player is so dominant and cannot (b/c of fitness concerns) contribute to the press. What would have happened if Messi picked up an injury in April and had to miss the tournament? Sabella probably would have picked Pastore and probably Tevez, too. That team would have been more balanced and, when you consider the thin margin with which the actual 2014 team advanced in the knockout rounds, may have achieved similar or better results.

george on July 14, 2014 at 4:28 pm

But the problem is precisely that Argentina didn’t have another creator (Xavi or Kroos-like), which is precisely the point. That simply meant that Messi could neither be simply a number ten, nor simply a false 9, nor a winger on the flanks. He was forced to do a bit of everything offensively, including dropping to midfield to start the attacks, precisely because Argentina lacked players to fulfill these roles. Of course he doesn’t track back but this is precisely because of what I said: he was asked to be a Xavi, an Ozil, a Muller and a Klose at the same time. When you’re doing all these things, you can’t possibly be asking him to track back and fiercely defend at the same time, it’s not realistic!

There’s not “tactical set up”, it’s a cheer matter of quality – why didn’t Robben completed dribbles? The “best player” award rewards individual contribution to one’s team. It’s blatantly obvious that Messi’s contribution to Argentina (whereby he basically carried all the Argentinean attack alone throughout the tournament) is far more than any other player’s contribution to his team in this tournament – just like Forlan’s contribution to Uruguay in 2010 was spectacular.

HT on July 14, 2014 at 4:57 pm

First, James was the best player in the tournament. Scored in all 5 games he played. His group was more difficult. He single-handedly, if that’s possible, eliminated a defensively solid Uruguay. He played well against a Brazilian team designed to shut him down. Kroos was masterful as well.

Messi is still the best but his skills limit the type of players you can have next to him. Gago was ineffective with Messi in his space and so the manager dropped him and put Messi in that role. They also asked Messi to provide penetrating passes in the final third, clever touches and find spaces for teammates like Ozil but Ozil covered more space then the great man did. How is that possible when they ask Messi to be a Xavi as well? No, they don’t ask Messi to be a Klose. They have Higuain; he just didn’t do his job when he needed to. Argentina do have quality. Lavezzi and Higuain are truly outstanding players. Should the coach have brought Pastore and Tevez? Perhaps. Would they have fit in the same team as Messi. I’m not sure. Pastore especially would be difficult to incorporate b/c Messi would want to play in the same space at times. Messi dropping deep gives him space on the ball so he can create with his magical talents but it also means that another player must play somewhere else if Messi is given the reigns of freedom. It means that the midfielders behind him must be even more diligent if he isn’t willing to track back. It’s a team game and Messi’s inclusion in his current incarnation (he is dropping deeper and deeper with Barca now even though they have a surfeit of playmakers) presents a number of problems. This is not a new thing. As early as 2011, people noticed Messi covering less ground, doing less defensive work and dropping deeper and deeper. A false nine is one thing but at Barca the midfield is so congested that they step on each others’ toes.

Desolate on July 15, 2014 at 12:43 pm

“But the problem is precisely that Argentina didn’t have another creator (Xavi or Kroos-like), which is precisely the point.”

Sabella could have picked Pastore or Banega (among others) for more crativity, but did not.
Isn’t he to blame for not recognizing this ?

mikex on July 16, 2014 at 11:58 am

Kross is the 2nd place player of this world cup in term of covering area

Amazing that Argentina made it to the finals with no attacking midfield. And while Germany were clearly the best team in the tournament–with the deepest bench–they could have easily lost this game. The world isn’t that far behind anymore.

Johnny on July 16, 2014 at 4:23 pm

Holland and Brazil didnt have a good attacking midfield neither but they reached the semis…

I think Sabella made the diamond switch because Germany were playing narrowly through the channels with Schurrle and he didn’t want Schweinsteiger or Kroos to make late runs. It looked 4-2-3-1 ish to me. This forced Howedes to advance a bit more to provide width, which would have given Argentina more space if their players weren’t exhausted.

I would have waited to take off Lavezzi until the 75th or 80th minute because his pace was keeping Howedes at bay and resulted in Argentina’s best chances. Palacio on for him would have made sense and Aguero coming on in extra time for Gonzalo might have been better because he didn’t look match fit and Messi was quite obviously tired.

That being said, Argentina were beaten more by fatigue than anything. Germany were fresher in extra time as seen by Schurrle and Gotze’s movement late on was an intelligent switch since Klose was well-marked.

DyslexiaUntied on July 14, 2014 at 3:27 pm

“Argentina were beaten more by fatigue than anything.”

Yes, this is clear, and this is a well-tried tactic. It was also the gameplan of Holland throughout the tournament, wear them out in the first sixty minutes and then strike with fast attacks, if possible with a fresh winger and CF – although it didn’t work every time (you can wear down the opponent allright, but you still need to score). In Germany’s case, this worked perfectly in the end with the still fresh Schürrle running past the tired defense on the left, and the even fresher Götze running into the space in the center.

george on July 14, 2014 at 3:41 pm

I disagree with the “distance” argument: it’s not how much distance you cover but how you do it. You can do an amazing amount of distance jogging (like Xavi in Barcelona or indeed Kroos in this German team) or much less distance but sprinting every time you have the ball (which inevitably means you need more rest afterwards). Messi was doing the latter, but you can’t expect someone to be doing both.

The problem with Messi in this Argentinean team is that he was expected to do absolutely everything: come back to pick the ball in midfield, play incisive passes as a number 10, overlap on the flanks as a winger, and be a ruthless goalscorer…and now people criticize him for not being a defensive midfielder too…That’s way too much to ask – and is way more than Maradona himself contributed even in 1986. Let’s remember that he – at least – had partners in attack who did score goals (e.g. Valdano, Cannigia), not least the ones of the final vs Germany, whereas Messi was desperately lonely both in the attack and the creative zone. That’s blatantly obvious.

That said, his performance has been outstanding: He scored 4 out 7 goals of Argentina + providing one assist. He created 21 chances in total (vs 13 of Muller, second to him), played as many through-balls as Pirlo (both top of ranking) and had 46 completed dribbles (vs 29 of Robben, who is second of the classification, and 50 of Maradona in ‘86)…he surely is the player of the tournament!

Ian Johnson on July 14, 2014 at 4:17 pm

My reading of the game was a little different. The way Argentina stood off in the first half looked to be asking for trouble at any moment. On at least three occasions we saw Germany switch the ball to the right and a dangerous cross come in almost without breaking sweat. The obvious midfield problem that Khedira’s injury and Kramer’s departure created did not appear to matter too much. That changed at half-time (as you noted). Even though Germany’s possession remained high, Argentina pressed them more in midfield and started to get players into Germany’s half in numbers. At this point, Schurrle’s introduction looked a genuine liability. Ozil did not appear to be helping defensively and Kroos and Schweinsteiger looked a little overrun. Perhaps Lowe would have been better to have moved Lahm into midfield and introduced Mustafi into the right-back slot. As was seen earlier in the tournament, this is not an optimal set-up, but the team overall may have functioned in a less compromised way. The opportunities for Germany counter-attacking in the second half appeared ripe, but whenever the ball went down the left, as it frequently did, it got held up as Schurrle baulked at taking on Zabaleta. By the time the ball was switched to the right flank and found Lahm, Argentina had players back in numbers.

When the game moved to extra time, Argentina appeared exhausted and reverted back to their first half mode of sitting back and allowing Germany plenty of time on the ball. Once again, Germany looked more the more dangerous side. The goal came when Schurrle finally took Zabaleta on and put in the cross.

Finally, Mascherano is due a great deal of praise – he was magnificent yesterday and possibly the best player on the pitch.

dropbear on July 14, 2014 at 6:39 pm

…”Ozil did not appear to be helping defensively and Kroos and Schweinsteiger …”

…Ozil had 14 km on the clock when he was replaced in the last minute (Messi just covered 10 km in the same time)… I recall seeing him defending deep several times in the match… IMO he did a great job, especially defensively…

BTW: Kramer, only 30 minutes in the game, covered 4.1 km ….

DyslexiaUntied on July 14, 2014 at 7:12 pm

I don’t think Özil can ever be accused of not trying hard enough, but he’s not a very consistent performer – which is why he has so many very vocal fans who point out to so many brilliant passes and intelligent runs, and equally vocal detractors who throw their hands up at his multitudes of failed take-ons and inexplicable losses of possession.

Wooledahl on July 14, 2014 at 8:02 pm

Mustafi was injured and could not play. One option would have been to let Boateng play as a right full back and introduce a new centre back. But whom? Mertesacker would have been a liability against Messi for lack of pace (especially considering that Hummels was clearly hampered by his knee problems). So the only option in this setup would have been to use Ginter who hadn’t played in the entire tournament (and for Germany so far only in friendlies). Certainly not an option that was superior to putting in Schürrle.

Zarafrustra on July 14, 2014 at 4:29 pm

How come you are singling out only Kroos leaving Khedira on the side? I think he was as good and maybe would even argue better than Kroos. It showed in final game when he was absent much like the game before when he was rested and changed the game when he came on. I don’t understand how you forgot to mention him alongside hummels and kroos. To me it seems that you cannot really seperate Khedira and Kroos. They play as one in a way

JN on July 16, 2014 at 4:30 pm

Because Khedira did not play in the game.

Lenor on July 14, 2014 at 4:48 pm

YOU ARE WRONG GUYS. ALL THE PLAYERS OF A TEAM ARE DEFENDERS (WHEN THE OPPONENT HAS THE BALL) AND ALL THE PLAYERS OF A TEAM ARE ATTACKERS (WHEN THE TEAM HAS THE BALL). THE FIRST ATTACKERS ARE THE BACK MEN AND THE FIRST DEFENDERS ARE THE FORWARDS.

ins on July 14, 2014 at 6:23 pm

Messi winning the tournament best player was the biggest joke ever. Even Neuer had completed more passes than him for the whole tournament… you d expect more from a n10.

One Veron on July 14, 2014 at 6:56 pm

I agree with it. Everything from Argentina went through Messi for the first 5 games. He had a poor semi (so did Robben who also had a great tournament), but I thought he was quite good in the final.

ins on July 14, 2014 at 8:22 pm

Argentina did not have a deadly group or something, Messi scored most of his goals in the groups against weaker teams. Then he had a performance or 2, but not at all something to be called performance of the tournament. Both Muller (against Portugal) and Robben (against Spain) did a performance which you could call the performance of the tournament. Yes Messi had a decent final, being run our of position by Schweini and creating on the counter. As I said I would expect more from a number 10. He should be controlling the pace of the game if he is really the player of the tournament. All I saw from Messi was trying to outpace Boateng or Hummels.

I am actually sad that Muller did not really cared about it. Here is his reaction when asked what he thinks about the golden ball and individual awards:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0unREb27as

Ryan on July 15, 2014 at 12:01 am

You mention scoring on weaker teams, but isn’t that what Robben did vs. Spain? Casillas was essentially gifting them goals!

One Veron on July 15, 2014 at 12:23 am

“Argentina did not have a deadly group or something, Messi scored most of his goals in the groups against weaker teams.”

I guess the other Argentina players scored a hatful in those games so?

Messi vs Belgium was much better than Mueller vs Portugal to me.

george on July 16, 2014 at 6:15 pm

Well, one needs to define “best” basically as the problem is that everyone has different interpretations…if the definition is “decisive for his team” then Messi was disproportionally more important to Argentina than any German player to Germany: just replace Muller with Reus and you still have a WC winning team, but you can’t say the same about Messi, without whom they might have been disqualified at the group stage…in the same way, Forlan was more “decisive for his team” reaching the semi-finals in 2010 than, say, Iniesta. We can debate for hours regarding definitions, of course…but “best” probably means different things to each one of us:-)

jimbojones on July 14, 2014 at 7:11 pm

One more observation: Argentina were horribly unlucky in losing Di Maria at the crucial stage of the competition. This season, the there best players were the two usual suspects plus a mercurial Suarez. And Di Maria was perhaps the 4th best player, in competition against the likes of Zlatan, Bale, Toure, D. Costa, and Vidal. Di Maria was the best player in the CL final, and was doing splendidly for Argentina before getting that injury. He unlocked the Swiss defense, and made the play that resulted in the Higuain goal against Belgium. Without Di Maria, the Argentinians failed to score in ~300 minutes of open play.

Sure, the Germans lost Reus – but Shurrle was an almost equivalent replacement. The Brazilian’s loss of Neymar was crucial; but it’s probably fair to say that player-for-player, Brazil were inferior to all other top teams, perhaps including even Italy and England. IMO a Columbia with a fit Falcao would be better than Brazil on paper.

Football is a cruel game. Atletico were seconds away from a double of historic proportions, and the Netherlands almost won the last WC and reached the final on the current one.

This is not to take away from the success of the Germans, who were definitely the best side in the tournament; but just to make a point.
—–
Before the tournament, ZM did say that Di Maria is the key player for Argentina. And I think they were proved correct.

This is very true. Sabella chose to gamble on a half-fit Aguero rather than a half-fit di Maria because Aguero’s a striker. In many ways he took the same gamble Loew took with Gotze since neither had a remarkable tournament prior, but Gotze was uninjured and was fresher when he played. His thought may have been to put his best strikers out there for penalties if Argentina had lasted 7 more minutes.

Daku on July 14, 2014 at 8:22 pm

Few observations from this World Cup

1. The legacy left probably by Spain that midfield wins the game is still strong. Germany showed this throughout the tournament (though they were lucky in the final).

3. There was an interesting strategy to overpass the midfield by two teams; Brazil and Holland. They played long balls relatively well and had they succeeded they would have set a new trend in football. This tournament showed that in the end it doesn’t work. At least in the long term throughout a tournament. It can be useful in certain games though.

4. In the end, as the finale showed, the eternal dilemma still remains: posses and press vs sit deep by defending and counterattacking. Well the possession football got lucky but I think it really deserves some more years of reign in the world.

5. Football gravity is moving toward Europe and that is not just by chance. I will be curious to know what will the Latin american reflection be on this matter in years to come.

Johnny on July 14, 2014 at 9:17 pm

all the major european clubs have south-american players, besides the semifinal of this WC was 2 europeans- 2 south-americans; and teams like Colombia or Chile could have reach the semis if they had a better fixture.

DyslexiaUntied on July 15, 2014 at 12:30 am

Holland played the long ball only in the first few matches though, after the group stage they reverted back to their more typical short passing game.

hwk on July 15, 2014 at 8:28 am

I think, there is no battle between possesion football and counterattacking football.

Maybe in a philosophical discussion, and of course in single games. But it is never a pure battle of this strategies. In a game it is always a battle of teams and their package of skills, tactics, mentality and so on. Even if teams like Spain or Barcelona dominate with a possession based style, it stays a domination of a certain team and not a certain style.

On an philosophical level, there will never be an answer to the question what style is more successfully. Of course one can argue that relegated teams usually have possession stats under 50%. But that’s not a failure of strategy but a result of the lack of skill compared to the opponent.

Possession football will never be dead, nor will counterattacking football. The best teams will be flexible enough to play both and adaptable enough to play against both styls.s.

To be honest, isn’t it more a case of both can be great and both can be poor depending on who is using them? That’s why it’s unsettling to see Pep Guardiola potentially mangle Bayern Munich’s great squad (letting Kroos go on a free) in order to shoehorn in posession-based football like he enjoyed at Barca. When I watched Bayern’s 2nd leg vs Man Utd in the CL last season, I’ve never seen a team look so uncomfortable in possession, with Lahm all the way up in midfield. And even though Man Utd on paper had nowhere near the attacking threats to trouble them, time and again they got the ball, 1-2 passes later and were in the Bayern half/box. It was only when Bayern went 0-1 down that Guardiola finally went back to the traditional Bayern way with Lahm at RB and went direct, and within 15 minutes they had scored 3 goals.

Sudha on July 15, 2014 at 4:24 pm

I concur. Guardiola is a zealot who thinks possession is not a means to an end but the end in itself. The success of FC Barca and Spain NT is not simply due to phython-like possession football but the availability of an outstanding generation of footballers (Xavi, Messi,Iniesta, etc). Without these players Barca would never been as sucessful.I can see what Giordola is doing- he’s making Thiago as the Xavi of Bayern by selling Kroos off. I suspect that Bayern won’t even make it to the semis next year with Kroos sold, Bastian being injury prone and Robben and Ribery nearing the end of their careers.

xl on July 15, 2014 at 10:08 pm

It wasn’t Guardiola that sold Kroos it was Bayerns management that didn’t want to raise his salary. Kroos has always been an important part in Peps puzzle and he doesn’t seem to be very happy about Kroos leaving for Madrid.

dropbear on July 16, 2014 at 3:34 am

wrt Kross leaving Bayern and coming season/ success: I expect that Bayern will have anyway big motivation problems after such a WC – the players won everything (CL and now WC) and lived for it … in a few weeks they should be mentally fit again and hungry for the next hunt … I can’t see that this is possible, hence some fluctuation might be actually quite positive…I expect that they have to rely on players like Alaba and Thiago etc. (all players that missed the WC) to be somehow successful…

zelo1954 on July 14, 2014 at 10:58 pm

A couple of points I noted during the game. Yes, Lavezzi was, on the face of it, a strange substitution but it was obviously done with the deliberate intention of attacking more with through passes up the middle. This Argentina did and I thought it coincided with their best period of the game – the first 20 minutes or so after half time. They looked dangerous with their narrow attack.

During this period – and for a wee while afterwards I thought Germany looked about 1/2 a player short in defence. This of course was inevitable given the earlier substitution of Schuerrle for the unlucky Kramer. I kept on looking for Oezil to sit a bit deeper and could see them conceding otherwise. But for absurd finishing they would have done.

I was watching the game with, among others, a Bayern supporter who was over the moon when Goetse came on. I recall saying “An unlikely hero – now watch him go and prove me wrong!”

Sudha on July 15, 2014 at 4:50 am

Some great points by ZM and other commentators here. I would like to add a few more observations which were missed out.

1. I think credit must be given to Sabella for able to forge this team out of average players and combine them with a brilliant group of attackers such as Messi, Higuain, Di Maria,etc. Argentina always had great attackers and defenders but in the past the coaches either fielded an overly attacking minded team (2010 Maradona) or brutal defensive one (1990). But Sabella has fused a team that did not resort to negative tactics or focused on destroying their opponents by balancing both attack and defence play with the limited talent pool he has. In my view he’s the coach of the WC. People tend to hail Van Gaal but the difference is that Sabella’s approach was much more positive and his use of tactics to mask his weak defence is brilliant.

2. I am puzzled by the constant accusation that Argentina is an one-man team or Messi-dependent. Of course when you have the best player of the generation, you tend to maximize him but it is an insult to suggest that Argentina is an one-man team as they have some really fantastic attacking players too.

3. There is much being said about Hummels and most of it deserving but the real star of the German defence is Boateng. Hummels has the habit of allowing nerves of getting better of him and this was seen in the final as well. Some of the chances that Messi had was due to Hummels’ errors than Argentina’s play. Hummels was the culprit when Germany lost to Italy in 2012 semi. Unless he can improve this aspect of his game, he cannot hope to be the great player that he can be.

4. Loew was unfortunate to suffer so many injuries even during the final. But his choice of Schurle for Kramer was a strange decision as this caused the German’s to drop their game in the 2nd half and they also stopped pressing and allowed the Argentines to start to assert themselves. Though this was vindicated in the end as Schurle made the cross, however this decision could have backfired on his as the German midfield had their worse spell in the WC in the 2nd half.I also think he was wrong to field Klose as the guy clearly not as fit and often unable to link well with midfield with his poor touch. With Argentine middle being so packed, Loew should have started with Schurle rather than Klose.

5. Though now Germany are the world champions, there is plenty of work needed for Loew to do. Some of the players have underperformed or unsuitable to the passing game and should be dropped. He also needs to blood new players. Ozil needs a rest as he lacks the mobility and tackling ability. New RB & LB are needed. Loew also needs to decide on CF – does he want a true CF or stick with Mueller or Gotze as a False 9. Player such as Gundogan, Reus, Durm, Bender need to be introduced and integrated.

4. I think by the time Kramer was injured there was hardly any holding midfielders left. I was worried he would move Lahm back to holding midfield, which would’ve been a disaster. But instead he gambled and kept things as they were, bringing on Schurrle as an attacker. I bet he was waiting to sub Klose for Schurrle as he did against Brazil, but injuries forced his hand.

5. Not sure why you’d say a new RB is needed? Lahm is still in sensational form. Unless you meant as his long-term replacement, then yeah I’d agree. LB definitely, Howedes has been the weak link in the back 4 all tournament, but still better than having Boateng there and Mertesacker’s chronic lack of pace exploited at CB.

Also I’m fairly sure Gundogan, Reus and Bender were all going to be picked for this WC squad but picked up injuries, in fact Reus I believe might have been first choice at one point. Durm was in the squad and I believe got game time against…Algeria I think?

Sudha on July 15, 2014 at 10:21 am

Yes, it does make sense to sub Klose with Schurrle but replacing him for Kramer actually made the midfield unbalanced and one can see the German MF losing shape and bite in the 2nd half. This also meant additional workload on Schweinsteiger (he ran 15 km that day more than any other player).

As for RB, yes Lahm is not getting younger and there is no obvious natural replacement so it would be wise to identify some young RB and start to blood the person. If Lahm is injured then Germany would be in real trouble.Durm is a fine player but lacks exposure.So he too needs some playing time so he’ll be ready by 2016/2018.At CB, with Badstuber coming back and Ginter developing well augurs well. But I am not convinced by Mustafi can be ever developed into a world class CB.

Yes, Gundogan, Bender and Reus were all injured. But these players too should be developed to replace Schweinsteiger, Khedira and Kroos. In particular Schweini has been injury-prone in the last few years. I think the Goetze situation would be interesting both at bayern and NT on how he will be used. Klose needs to be replaced too with either Mueller or Schurrle. I think Schurrle can be one of the best strikers in the world if he’s properly guided and used.

Desolate on July 15, 2014 at 12:47 pm

Reus is not a central midfielder, just like Schürrle is not a striker.

Nowitzki on July 15, 2014 at 1:34 pm

You already wanna replace Kroos?

And I think Jogi wanted to play a 4-2-3-1 against the 4-4-2 argentina was playing at first half, but then Sabella sacked Lavezzi and made a 4-3-1-2 and exploited well the lack of a physical player at the german midfield (even tho Schwein handled it very well)

Sudha on July 15, 2014 at 4:03 pm

Nope, now that Kroos is being developed as the central player of the German midfield, there has to be some good back up in case he gets injured. And since Germany has enough midfield talent, it makes sense to develop alternatives.

But personally, while I like Kroos, I am not fully convinced that he’s as good as some of his fans and analysts saying. I am not so sure that he’ll be a great success in Real (that is if he does sign up for them). To me he lacks a certain authority and mental strength to be a truly great midfielder like Bastian. I feel that he only plays well when others around him are all playing well. He doesn’t take the game by the scruff of the neck. I could be wrong about him and would be happy if he proves to be otherwise.

On the other hand Gundogan to me has the potential to be the greatest German MF of his generation with skills, stamina, physical strength, attitude and guts.

Hakon on July 15, 2014 at 2:55 pm

Schweinsteiger is 29, Khedira is 27 and Kroos is 24. Gundogan is 23, Bender 25 and Reus is 25. For 2016 there is no age reason for any changes in midfield. That said if they get back to the shape they had before their injuries Gundogan(midfielder) and Reus(winger) would get into the first XI on pure quality. They would have started most of the games in this world cup had it not been for their injuries. Bender is a good player, but for Germany he is just a usefull reserve.

The German team is quite young as can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_FIFA_World_Cup_squads#Group_G
In 2018 Klose would be to old. Schweinsteiger, Lahm (30), Mertesacker (30), Podolski (29), Weidenfeller (33) might be to old. This however depends on how well they age, and how their replacements progress. I expect Schweinsteiger and Lahm to be in the squad for 2018 as they are quality players and leaders of the team. Whether or not they will be in the first XI is impossible to say. In attack Germany have Mario Gomez who have been having injury troubles in Fiorentina. He is 29 and if he recovers would be a good poacher for 2016. The role Gomez is playing seems to me to be forgiving of lack of speed or stamina due to aging, therefore he might be good for 2018 and 2020 too.

As for blooding young players such as Durm. Playing regularly in the Bundesliga and European cups will do this. Qualifying matches for the world cup are not of higher quality than matches in the top European leagues. World Cup matches are not of higher quality than champions league matches. For the development of players what matters is how they do at club level. Playing for the national team does have some benefits as it allows you to improve your relationship with the other players on the national team, to become more familiar with your role, and for the national coach to become more familiar with you and how to use you. All of this will improve your performances in the national team. This is similar to how some players after a transfer need some time before they play at their best level. This process however is not so rewarding that it would make sense to drop Lahm before Durm is actually better than him.

Sudha on July 15, 2014 at 4:13 pm

I like your points, very interesting indeed.

- the changes to the midfield in 2016 probably not necessary but injuries but Schweni’s injury prone and that could be an issue. I guess Lahm will be of a lesser concern as he’s very fit and injures less often. Bender should be developed as a cover/sucessor for Khedira.
- But I very much doubt if Gomez should be included as he’s not the kind of player Low likes as he lacks mobility and link up play.

- I agree that exposure to high quality national and european league matches are vital in developing young players. However I still think it is important for them to be given chance to play in the NT games to integrate them into the NT’s style of play and develop understanding with other team members. There is another reason why these youngsters should be allowed chance – the older players like Bastian and Lahm cannot be asked to play high level matches at club and NT levels all the time as they grow older. To lengthen their career, the clubs and NT must allow them enough rest without asking to play every game, with 2 games/week.

Shileno on July 15, 2014 at 11:38 pm

Durm was one of the five players in the German squad who didn’t get any play time. I still wonder what he did wrong in the training sessions that Löw kept holding on to Höwedes as left defender. Not that Höwedes didn’t do the best job he could, but the left side is not his place, and throughout the tournament he was the weak link in building up attacks from the left side. Durm played a very good season in Dortmund and if he can keep or even improve his level I think that Schmelzer will have a hard time holding onto his place in Dortmund’s starting eleven.

I really hope that Gündogan comes back into shape. He was such a decisive player for Dortmund and would already easily having been a serious competition for Schweinsteiger or Khedira. Considering his age, this guy has the potential to outshine both of them.

I’d be curious to hear people’s thoughts on Gary Neville’s comments. When Germany won the WC, many England fans were saying we should copy the Germany system of making the Premier League geared towards helping the national team, like the Bundesliga with it’s insistence that all top-flight clubs have top-level academies and play at least six German-developed and German-qualified players in their squads. Neville dismissed this out of hand, claiming ‘oh we haven’t got magic wands’ and seeming to patronise them over it.

Fact is, I’m fairly sure the PL COULD do it, but the problem is more now that the PL is such a money-making goliath that it now is a law unto itself, and refuses to serve anyone but itself. The fact is though the PL’s style of football isn’t great for international football, and whilst players coming from abroad have already schooled themselves enough so that they are technically skilled and can adapt to both 100mph end-to-end madness of the PL and the patience of European/international football, English players coming up just get the former.

Also, it’s a shame England players generally are reticent to go abroad – Tom Ince for example had an offer from Inter Milan, but turned it down for Hull City of all teams. No disrespect to Hull (or the Tigers?!), but surely Inter would’ve been the better choice from a football quality/education standpoint? I would love to see some England youngsters try and go to Germany and immerse themselves in this exciting football culture, which will only skyrocket now they’ve won a WC.

Sudha on July 15, 2014 at 11:13 am

I think you got it spot on.

The clamour to copy the German model started back in 2010 WC as I recall.But nothing much happened since.

In my view the problem with EPL is there is too much money in it. As such English players are overpriced (even those average ones) so the coaches prefer to foreign players who are cheaper. Also with too much money comes too much pressure for instant results thus this leads the managers to opt for experienced and proven pros instead of spending time to develop young players.EPL is too succesful to the detriment of the England squad.

Absolutely. I think the only way you will get clubs producing young England players are lower down the tiers – even the Championship is becoming awash with money as is in £2bn of debt total.

It really saddens me how year on year we have owners sacking British managers and replacing them with third-rate foreigners just because they are Spanish so that will solve all our problems, or whatever. See Cardiff City – did Solskjaer do a better job than Mackay would have done? Or at WBA, Steve Clarke led them to a record finish in 2012-13, but was sacked shortly into the following season and replaced with a mid-table Spanish manager who couldn’t even speak English. Same with Southampton the previous year, replacing Adkins with Pochettino (although in that case I guess it paid off), and then he went on to replace Tim Sherwood who looked quite promising in charge of a Tottenham squad in transition.

An article on BBC Sport outlines the problem – we can produce the talent and coaches at grassroots level, but as soon as they get to the PL opportunities to actually play dry up, and they are more willing to sit on the bench or play in the reserves and take the huge paycheque than go abroad for chances – like Pogba did at Juventus. Someone made a point the other day – Josh McEcheran ran rings around Pogba a few years back in a PL game. One moved to Italy to get first team football and went on to be the Young Player of the Tournament at World Cup 2014. The other is…on loan at a mid-table Championship club.

Tom on July 15, 2014 at 8:32 pm

I’m surprised it’s still even legal to criticize the wave of foreigners that have overrun the Premier League.

DyslexiaUntied on July 15, 2014 at 10:02 pm

I don’t think at all that the strength of the EPL is holding English players back. In all the peripheral countries, everyone’s decrying the exact opposite (ie, before this WC it was widely assumed that Dutch league players all lack toughness and concentration because they are never tested against good players, Ajax/PSV players can easily bang ‘em in against hapless small Dutch clubs, etc).

It is also somewhat rediculous to assume that, say, Sturridge would have been a better striker if he played alongside Andy Carroll instead of Suarez, or that Cahill would defend better if he had to face nothing but an army of Heskeys every weekend.

If anything, English, Spanish and German players have an advantage because they play with/against the best, week in week out. Spain has underperformed for decades until they finally got a great generation – was their player development suddenly fantastic for a few years and complete sh1t before and after? Of course not. Good development helps, but you still need the raw material, a group of great players that happen to play together at the same time. The Germans have gone through spells of weak squads, and likewise “golden generations” like ex-Yugoslavia 1992-1998, Holland 1974-1978 and 1996-2000, England 2006-2010, Portugal 2000-2004, etc can underperform and not win a tournament, due to internal strife, injuries, a missed penalty or just bad luck. Football is unfair – sometimes the best do not win, sometimes countries don’t have a decent squad, it happens. England will have a great squad someday again, and then they may or may not win a tournament. That’s life.

Hakon on July 15, 2014 at 3:49 pm

You and the people that have replied to your coment make good points. However the difference between German and English youth development goes deeper than just a difference in atitude of PL and Bundesliga.

The amount of qualified coaches creates a culture where ordinary kids are better thought when it comes to football. Combine this with the amount of youth centers and academies serving the best of these kids and you have a situation where the Germans have a talent pool that is much larger than the English, even before the big clubs are involved. There are several large English clubs that have good academies and are willing to give young players a chance. However many of the spots in these academies are taken by foreigners, because there are not enough good English players to clame these spots. The Germans started reforming their system in 2000 and they only really started seing the results in 2010. The reason it took so long is that the reforms they implemented went all the way down to how they treat kids.

Related to this I like the fact that in Germany talented players dont have to choose between trying to become fotballers and getting an education as pointed out in this quote by Sebastian Neuf, a member of the Freiburg football school’s management, from the Guardian article:

“When I went to Aston Villa eight years ago I told them our players, under-17, 18 and 19, go to school for 34 hours a week,” he says. “They said: ‘No, you’re a liar, it’s not possible, our players go for nine hours.’ I said: ‘No, I’m not lying.’ They said: ‘It’s not possible, you can’t train and do 34 hours of education.’ I said: ‘Sure. And what do you do with the players who have for three years, from the age of 16 to 19, only had nine hours a week of school?

“They said: ‘They have to try to be a professional or not. They have to decide.’ I said: ‘No, we can’t do that in Freiburg. It’s wrong. Most players in our academy can’t be professionals, they will have to look for a job. The school is the most important thing, then comes football.’ We give players the best chance to be a footballer but we give them two educations here. If 80% can’t go on to play in the professional team, we have to look out for them. The players that play here, the majority of them go on to higher education. And we need intelligent players on the pitch anyway.”

SKPain on July 15, 2014 at 9:59 am

Germany deserved to win but it really came down to the chances Argentina missed. When the best player in the world misses a clear chance like that there’s not much that can be done. I’d like to commend Sabella for doing what he did and giving Argentina a clear shot at the title. For that I think he should be the coach of the tournament.

Jason on July 15, 2014 at 10:42 am

Michael, it has been almost two years since I stumbled upon ZM. Thank you for your insight into football tactics. You have taught me pretty much everything I know.

Keep up the fantastic work!

jupiter53 on July 16, 2014 at 2:14 pm

As always, reading your insights throughout the tournament has added immensely to my enjoyment.

Thank you.

Seybold on July 16, 2014 at 6:21 pm

“This wasn’t a game for Aguero, a player always extremely restricted when not 100% fit…”